>> next on booktv, presentation of the series paolucci/bagehot dinner. this year's reset and is john fonte, author "sovereignty or

submission" about global covering america's constitutional democracy. during the dinner, mr. fonte delivered a lecture based on his book. it's a little over an hour. [applause] >> thank you. i'm very honored and it's very flattering to be in such good company of the previous winners of the paolucci/bagehot award. it's an honor to receive this, an organization, which for more than 60 years has done wonderful work insisting in the core principles of american civic life. i also wish to extend condolences to the isv community for the recent loss of a great lady and a great scholar, and gallucci. at least to acknowledge gallucci

gallucci -- i hope that he would've been pleased at presenting this award to me, as pleased as i am in receiving it. i'm going to proceed as follows. first i'm going to talk about what i call philadelphia sovereignty. second i'm going to examine the ideas of the global governance project, which challenges philadelphia sovereignty. and then we'll move to action and look at the actual activities. fourth, will examine the significance of this conflict between constitutional government and global governance. sovereignty is defending the scholars scholars than most people as westphalian, embodied in the nation state is going the treaty of 1648 and that's true to an extent. when i was working on the book

and thinking of coming up with concepts, i relist americans don't think of themselves as westphalian sovereignty. we the people of the united states of america. opening words of the constitution, written in philadelphia, hence philadelphia sovereignty. but what is philadelphia sovereignty, the people are sovereign, the three constitution and the core of the twin pillars of our liberty and consent. so we do have majority rule, but majority rule is limited reconstitution and the whole system of separation of powers, federalism and limited government. a lot of times people get hung up in the republic or democracy. wary compound machine, a regime

that is both liberal and democratic or constitutional republic and. you can use any of these terms. alexander hamilton used the term representative democracy. zürich government based on majority rule and consent, but that is limited by a constitution, hence the compound machine. one of the major charges raised against king george the third in the declaration of independence was about sovereignty. i've read that church. he, george the third has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution and unacknowledged by our laws to their acts of pretended legislation. of course the constitution in 1776 was the british constitution. but that concept is the same. there were some foreign jurisdiction is going to have authority over us. we're going to examine now the ideas and practices that those who in our time has combined

with others to subject us or tend to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution. ideas have consequences as we learned long ago from an early isi scholar, richard weaver. so let's examine the global governance project. these ideas are not hard to find. you don't have to be invited to seek rebuilder broker conspiracy meeting, any of this out. it's right out in the open on the website, and so u.n., european union, american bar association, dean said most law schools at american universities, all there on the internet. people are not talking about world government. this form of transnational government. so let's look at for people,

just some quick views of players who have given a taste of the concept global governance. strobe talbott is currently the president of the brookings institution, a major think tank in washington. former secretary of state as a journalist for "time" magazine in the 1990s, talbott wrote an article in which he welcomes supernatural political authority. he said, how back in the next hundred years nationhood as we know it will be obsolete in all states will recognize a single global authority. he concluded by saying that his devolution of power, upwards towards supranational and downwards toward units of administration is basically a positive phenomenon. harold koh is currently the legal adviser at the u.s. state department. in other words, he advises the president on what international law is.

he was dean of the alaska when given a speech last week at georgetown law. he's a major figure in international law. terrell cole wrote domestic courts must play a major role in coordinating u.s. domestic constitutional rules with the rules of foreign and international law to advance the broader development of a well functioning international judicial system. think about that for a minute. american courts can't coordinate the law firm international law. they won't have much influence, but didn't coordinate american. they can only coordinate by definition if this is true, it would coordinate american law, he would have to subordinate american law, the only way this would logically work.

fourth person is in murray slaughter, head of the office it of policy and planning at the u.s. state department. during the first years of the obama administration. anne-marie slaughter wrote that she argued the nationstates should see the degree of sovereignty to what she calls transnational networks. vertically, nations should cede sovereign authority of supranational institutions such as the international criminal court. they be something about the nation. supranational institution. fodor maintains such transparent networks, can perform many of the functions of a world government, legislation, administration and adjudication thereby creating a global rule of law. she was the person in policy plan to keep entertained first

two years of the obama administration. also richard haas is currently president of the council on foreign relations and was a special assistant to george h.w. bush during the administration of george w. bush served as director of policy and planning and richard haas said it's time to rethink sovereignty. he argues sovereignty is not only becoming weaker in reality, but needs to become weaker. states should want to weaken sovereignty in order to protect themselves. those are some of the ideas. before proceeding i want to make one thing absolutely clear. i'm not talking against international law or relations nitrite clear between trains nationalism and globalism. there's nothing wrong with having international, the two

nations. the united states as a nato treaty with western europe, defend ourselves, and international treaty. there's plenty of trade treaties. same thing. i am criticizing the book supranational or transnational, think of the transcontinental railway, something across nation. so the term transnational is used and that's distinguished from international. those are some of the ideas you could stick in the refit little now. what are global or transnational lives? what are global laws and rules mean? where are the twin pillars? liberty consent. i'll give you one example of national security policy in one example from domestic policy. let's look at the laws of war.

united states is a party to the geneva conventions of 1949. the original geneva conventions at the traditional laws of war were radically altered in 1977 by the addition of additional protocol one to the geneva conventions. protocol one was supported during negotiations by the group of 77, soviet bloc at the time, the speeds, the swiss, many human rights groups, many ngos, nongovernmental organizations including international committee of the red cross. protocol recognized guerrillas and terrorists is operating without uniforms and without clear command structure is this legitimate combatants. they work under the regulation of the conventions. so they change the rules to favor regular horses or conventional forces.

two examples. under protocol one, regulars and terrorists are permitted to hide in civilian population with concealed weapons before an attack it at that point consider civilians. at that point they bring their weapons out of fire. they're a legitimate combatant and forces can fire at them. then they jump back in the crowd and that point their civilian again and you cannot pursue them or fire into the crowd. to what does this do? it obviously gives the terrorists an advantage over the conventional forces, but also endangers the civilians. saw these human rights groups are actually bringing civilians into greater danger by rules of protocol one. another rule is that it requires to mourn civilians in the air attack in the area and air

attack is coming. you can imagine not that she better clear the propaganda ministry of all civilians and air attack on its way. obviously come u.s. air force does not follow although israelis did follow this. they did want people before some attacks and they received were casualties because of days. under the reagan administration, the united states repudiated president carter's signature and said we would not ratify protocol. most of the world has. canada, allies, most democracies , but most are at your protocol one. during the mid-80s the united states australia conducted war games, once a decent protocol one, they change sides and so on. you followed her to call one

rules. during the 1990s, american lawyers and amnesty international charged the united nations -- the united states air force serious violations of the laws of war during the bombing campaign in kosovo and yugoslavia. they brought these charges before un-sponsored international tribunal for the saudia, which uses protocol one as its spears amnesty international decried as a secular to give warning to bombing. human rights complaint the u.s. air force was too concerned with ensuring pilot safety. these are american lawyers complaining about the air force. too worried about the safety of american service members. people talk about global rules here this is also an example of transnational politics.

so these violations of the law during the afghan war. also american western human rights watch, amnesty international church americans as war crimes once again, bringing to the criminal court from which the u.s. is not a member and doesn't recognize them on the basis of protocol one rules. when someone says you followed the non-convention, you have to know the traditional rules we see in these movies are refit the new rules of 1977, which privilege terrorists. so what we've just described her transnational, waging what we call love affair against liberal democracy. l'affaire could be defined as the use or misuse of the for purposes of litigation, harassment, propaganda to

achieve an ideological purpose. what is the purpose? what do they want to achieve? they would like to achieve supremacy of global law or international law, though it's not the heat american airmen. they do this for the purpose of establishing global law superior to american constitutional law and promoting protocol one. i was national security. one answer from domestic politics. there is a united nations convention for elimination of all forms of discrimination against women, signed by most countries in the world. a few countries have not joined. sudan, syria, islamic republic and the united states of america.

well, what a disgrace. how can united states be a world leader on the vendor is to not the treaty? let's take a look. what would ratification mean? the american bar association has written a book length report, 200 pages comics waning but american compliance with me in. aba report is based on those countries that have ratified the treaty. so when they went to britain or australia or canada, they wrote a report telling these countries how to follow the treaty. the aba report proposes questions, all potential losses. the aba explains is not about equality of opportunity, not about equality under the law. this about equality of resolve, statistical equality, the aba states gender quotas are not

voluntary and create nondelegation for a system. so i'm going to run through a few of your questions from the american bar association on a website. this is the country joins. what training programs exist to educate judges about precedence over national law? is very national mechanism to promote de facto equality? if so, does it promote measures in developing policies? chemical professionals initiate lawsuits? if so, how many cases have been filed? at their quotas, targets or goals? if so, what are they? does the machinery attacked budget expenditures? for% is spent on women's

programs, social issues, family programs? or their quotas, targets, specifics? et cetera, et cetera. to gender quotas exist for increasing women elected to government bodies? at a public education programs conducted by the state to emphasize the importance of balance representation in all elected bodies and so on? i condemned they are not universal human rights. they have little to do with equality of opportunity. they're they are essentially a partisan political positions of western progressives of the western left. come off as universal human rights. in the u.n. monitoring committee to france in 2000 make company said you're doing a good job unpolitical pairing. 50% of candidates for municipal elections is good. but you don't have 50% of women on corporate boards or financial institutions. surveys suggest instituting financial sanctions against companies that did not address

these differences. the u.n. committee went to germany 2004, demanded that the federal government had conduct a study on my fathers are not without and to parental leave. it's not just a state policy. it's a national policy. there's not many men taking advantage. why is in a quick sweat as you and start having a quality results and the actual process? okay, let's step back for a minute. cause then responds, say so what. u.n. treaty bodies have no enforcement problem. the black helicopters are not going in the u.n. will not come out and enforces laws. so what's the problem? well, the problem is the reality is a powerful american,

including the american bar association on many other groups, which is promoting global human rights. they wanted to be superior. they don't quite say spirit of the nationallaw, but it has to be superior. the american bar association assessment tool is a 200 page book makes very clear that if the united states ratifies, there will be hundreds of lawsuits. there's many other human rights treaties. rights of the child, currently righted the disabled before the senate as we speak probably will pass because what senator wants to get them say i'm going to vote against the rights of the disabled three. it has always had measures in quotas and someone with demand. so they're about a political agenda that includes a migrant rights treaty. the whole range of human rights treaties really about politics and not about human rights.

what's wrong is that distorts the process and takes the committee outside of her committee and interest icons additional process. it takes a size within that process on one side against the other. we had the foreign body. a much bigger problem is that aims to shrink the area of democratic decision-making. democratic decision-making at a national level, congressional level. this shrinks federalism because the federal system has always trumped in any human rights treaties. the civil society or business sector and even parental rights and rights of a child were decision-making made at the individual family or individual level. all of this is shock or if there's an attempt to shrink it by the global governance, by

what's called the global human rights movement. featuring celebrity and consent. this shrinks liberalism and democracy. this shrinks constitutionalism and republicanism. the forces of global governance claim authority over wide range of issues. the three people are traditionally decided for themselves. the democratic legislatures are a federal system. issues include budget practices, criminal sentences, law enforcement, textbooks, criminal sentences, employment, immigration, border enforcement, health care, discipline of children within the family, government of multilingualism, composition of government bodies and so one. u.n. human rights treaties explicit we address all of these issues. so what does this mean? what is the significance of a global governance movement.

first of all, this is a major actor in world politics today. it has an ideological base, idea basin material base. there's a social base. part of what i call the party of global governance certainly includes leaders of a major american university. american law schools in particular, leading ngos, beating american foundations and ford foundations. these of the european union. all of these are part of what i call the global governance movement. .1 is a major actor. .2 is a conflict going on between global governance and the forces of the liberal democratic nationstate.

.3 means we need to rethink world politics. we think of it today is the nations can and may be ngos. we have to take the party of global governance and put it on the chessboard. it's a major actor, and actor adversarial to american interest and american values and democracy in general. certainly adversarial to nationstate struggling such as israel. we think in terms of categories of liberal internationalism, realism, but we haven't thought of global politics, which is now transnational. american lawyers are going to international courts to try to indict american airmen. that's transnational politics. we need a rethinking of world politics. we have a hostile player.

there's many american trans nationalists and they see america to lead the way, to sort of a doubt the global governance project and have america share sovereignty. so sharing sovereignty with others and demonstrate leadership. how? subordinated themselves to supranational legal machine. america's got to a globally. it really means following global leadership. but those who promote americans and global governance say this is in our interest and it's consistent with their values. it's in our interest because with the strongest power in china and nations are coming out. so what we want to do is establish global rules now so 30

years from now or so these rules will be in place, chinese elites and others will have internalized it. i'll the following the global rules and be practicing it in though because global stewards and citizens. so at that point would become weaker and it won't have anything to worry about. anne-marie slaughter supports this general line of argument and this is a quote from her, what goes around comes around. principles that could constrain us today may well guarantee our freedom tomorrow. the argument of global governance is an american interest is flawed is on pragmatic and principled grounds. first of all our freedom will not be guaranteed by these global rules or any global institutions would not be guaranteed freedom. that will be guaranteed by military establishment second to

none and the will to use it. and then of course but say they tried this. [inaudible] by what they see these euros 30 or 40 years wednesday become top dog? how a site than 30 years ago when you guys are the number one power. why should we do that anymore? most countries are opportunistic. if circumstances change, they will change and loss of international rules are a good 30, 40 years in the past will no longer be valid. so it's naïve to establish a stable, international order and utopian premise because the united states agreed to subordinated sovereignty and global authority when it was the leading power that others will do the same sometime in the future. of course this also fails on the

more grams of democratic self-governance. a lot of the vital interests of the united states. the most vital interest of the united states are securing the preservation and preparation of democratic self-government, of liberty and our way of life. if we subordinate ourselves, we party given up our vital interests. so i would argue that to suggest with our values, subjective to a jurisdiction as the declaration of independence put it would in effect be committing democratic suicide. my final chapters the suicide of liberal democracy. but it's unlikely people are going to achieve the type of governance regime. their powerful forces. but there is a realistic system

for the world and they're not going to achieve the type of piece of global regime they would like. but they certainly could contribute to our downfall by making us either to be to defend ourselves or by shrinking the liberty at home so he went through with the regulations. they can contribute to the consumer side in security and domestic policy without achieving the type of regime. we can see this in the european union. europe today is more or less committed suicide or may come back, may be resuscitated. but they've given up sovereignty to the european union today. 60%, 80% of us are not democratic parliaments like the house of commons, that the european commission initiates 60% to 80% of the laws told

today by the deputy ambassador of the european union and washington. i'm not making this up. so the conflict between self-governing regime and global governance is going to be witness for a while. i see his perennial. maybe not after the 20th century because it concerns going back to plato, the question of who covers into a regime. in my book i have a chat or discussing the history of the global governance and with the american founders look back to this and had a definite opinion. there were five grandmas side of an independent sovereignty and against transnational governance. the favorite david over goliath. the ancient israelites over their imperial vote. cato oversees there. the roman republic over the roman empire.

english republican over the kings. the british parliament and ultimately of course american self-governance over autocratic power abroad is it that i venerable isi scholar, the wilmer kendall noted in the declaration of right, the founders view expressed with an emphasis on the right of law, right of the people to govern themselves. the arguments of his self-governing sovereignty will continue as the 21st century develops. submissive sovereignties obsolete. they are saying self-government is obsolete. when someone says the world of the future requires the rules of global governance, they say americans and other people do not have the moral right to govern themselves. my book argues americans do have the moral right to rule themselves as do other people does aspired to self-government

and have capacity for self-government and explains the independent self-government of the democratic state is preferred to all forms of global governance. i'm going to add by simply reading the final chapter in my book, which i go back to quincy, massachusetts june the 30th, 1826. john adam, all duly and frail or cc groups of visitors and is upstairs library. the town leaders of quincy are organized in a celebration for the upcoming 50th anniversary of the declaration of independence. they asked the most prominent citizens, john adams center at the young republic is the opposite independence. they ask them for a toast to be bad to the celebrants on july the fourth, 1826 and adam replies independence forever.

he says not a word. i have nothing more to say except independence forever. [applause] >> in terms of principal actors, the united states seems to be leading the charge into nine to sovereignty to other nations, look in that liberal democrats such as hillary clinton in kosovo, serbia and also neocons in the invasion on iraq and most recently the globalized, obama

and the invasion of libya. so what my question is, here we have the united states denying the sovereignty of other nations and that i think is a problem of the two parties, both which are socially were parties. >> okay, in my book i distinguish between sovereignty in general, which is westphalian sovereignty, which would be the sovereignty of the burmese junta are any autocratic state and democratic sovereignty, which i call american, but there are other democratic sovereignty states. i make that distinction in the democratic sovereignty is more greater moral authority and sovereignty in general. so the cases you're referring to are in most cases overthrowing

autocratic sovereignty. this is also a policy question. at that concerns me with the regime questions of a political science professor, liberal democracy and clinical science are two types. one is regime to close the type of government you have in the form goes to your regime in the form of government, both culture and the government you should be our foreign policy, keeping gadhafi empower, is that four or in opposition to american interests? i don't get them as issues' notebook. those are policy issues. i'm mainly concerned with regime issues. but you take your point, i am making a distinction between the democratic sovereignty and so i guess they don't have an objection to the overthrow of

the burmese government. it would have an objection is a policy, i don't think to be a good policy to change every country in the world i am not advocating not in any sense. we can argue about different policies. i'm saying is a form of government, the liberal democratic nationstate is superior to other forms of government. one would be global governance. others isn't autocratic regime. i talk about russia and china has autocratic regimes than i do see any problem pushiness countries in a democratic direction, not by force, the public affairs and so on would be an acceptable policy. we could do it or not do it is a policy decision. of course there is radical islam, which establishes sharia as the constitutional structure and countries. so there's different political systems and insane saying the philadelphia sovereignty is my

preferred system. >> thank you for your presentation. i thought it was excellent. we see this stuff happening all the time, but she's captured a in thin contrasting subjects, sovereignty or submission and in the u.n. things that would further weaken our sovereignty or process to be submissive. so i'm wondering which are actions are. i guess when i look at the country, some huge percentage would need to know what you're talking about. 50, 60, 70% and the people in this or not probably to know what you're talking about and politicians who don't care, just want to get elected and maybe a state department that might understand, that may or may not want us to remain sovereign.

so you said you were going to offer some actions are something i thought. >> i didn't say that, but i certainly am doing that. i do work in washington and some of us from some of the think tanks have started a sovereignty caucus with members of congress. so two years ago we started a sovereignty caucus, that has spent 50 congressmen, but there's some senators. i've worked on it but senator kyl, but this new members of the senate coming or interested in sovereignty. so i think this is on the radar screen. there's a couple of treaties. the u.n. treaty and the law of the sea, which could actually do

direct taxes and collect their own money from the member states. they could actually not collect money for transactions in the sea. so we first with members who are opposing the law of the sea treaty or of questions about it. there's a disabled rights treaty, which is another -- being very aware days, in fact the new senator from texas who probably will be elected was the attorney general with a major figure in the maybe in case, which is a major case in international law, the state of texas to fight with president bush and the u.s. state department and the u.n. he was the attorney general u.s. senator for senator cruise

probably. so there is the dvd. this action going on. >> i myself would follow that because in your description of the nature of the global governance movement, it was a strongly believe this movement. you mentioned presidents of universities, law schools, international lawyers, ngos. everybody who works for the e.u. and so, my question would be a little more specific. what is the social base for the sovereignty movement and particularly, what are the elites in america, for example, that can be mobilized in order to resist and assert his father in view? >> i suppose the social base in places such as face and think

tanks and activist. was probably the first effort of the movement back in the 1950s, which was promoted, the main promoter in 1855 is the american bar association, which was leading defender and they were close to senator john bricker of ohio, who introduced this amendment that's really complicated, but basically treaties could not trumpet and any treaties not self-executing but we can't congress and pass a lot implementing executive orders. so i've given toxic groups around the country. because activists are counteracted this or interested in american sovereignty on a wide range of issues, people who are conservative on agenda 21 and environmental issues and

think there's an overreach by global environmentalists. this is family oriented groups also concerned. it tends to limit israeli sovereignty. so there's a broad coalition of center-right this groups and maybe counter intellectual is who performed the social base. i have a chapter in the book on the european union's. i'm very interested in that. there's a pushback in europe and a political group in europe to look to reagan and thatcher in the european conservatives and reform as they spoke during may. many people want to return. the principles of reagan and

thatcher impressed that caused in the czech republic who are pro-americans, pro-free enterprise, pro-sovereignty and attempted to fight back against the european union's. it doesn't come from the german and french so-called conservatives, but it does come with elements so there is pushback they are. so it's another way of hope. >> you didn't use the word insidious. is this an insidious breeding for you? and the glaring example of why it won't work is europe, european union. it isn't working so well. if you can't organize countries that are all on the same continent, was supposed to be

the same civilization, how are you going to reconcile that the civilizations just so far-fetched should not stand. >> the response is to down now. we need more year. now we need european in charge of all the banks. our budget policy is what the leaders are saved. so the union didn't work. how long did it exist? something or 80 years and not work that doesn't prevent you from continuing. >> would you comment on any connections you see between groups that appear to have less concern about protect the

national borders and issues a sovereignty? >> i'm not quite following the evening. >> the question is, is there a connection, or do you have any thought about groups or people -- >> absolutely. i have a chapter on this in the book on border issues. absolutely, yes. it's the same exact group of people. the american civil liberties union has a political alliance with mexico. they signed an agreement to work against the u.s. government against the american border force. they have a formal agreement with this american group, american civil liberties union and how they get around border enforcement and when we do to undermine american sovereignty. i have a chapter on immigration and the assimilation of immigrants of the national

identity invites important in this wave of increasing immigration. we have peach ergodic simulation is supposed to multiculturalism and yes it's the very same groups. in fact, the u.n. brought the tour, we have a professor at notre dame, but examining from the u.n. come without the authority of the u.s. government. but he met with the aclu, human rights international. so they want to promote global law. they're working with governments. so you're absolutely right. >> i think like most of this room, i agree the general sentiment here that lives in sovereignty for america to transnational entities is a dangerous thing. i'll ask a more theoretical questions, which is what's so

great about the nationstate? it seems that the arguments advancing could also be in favor of state sovereignty against the nationstate or local sovereignty against the state or nationstate. so what is it that so special other than the fact that it's what we happen to have? >> that's a good question and that's where i go. that's what i started with. they were thinking that the answer republics for city states in this matter since it has to be broader and effect by having a broader regime, we permit a certain type of diversity and permit greater strength for liberty. i would say in the modern age, this is probably the best defense for liberty. doesn't have to be nationstate exactly. theoretically cut alone in a for flanders could probably exist as

a nation, as long as they separated peacefully. they established the democratic republic of flanders to some people are discussing now. this could have been. it's not even theoretical at this point. i have a few call it a nationstate. but it doesn't necessarily mean ethnic nation. in the modern world, this is probably the best institutions, unless you can, but better. i don't think it would be world government, but it would be a form of governance in which they were the structures. an international criminal core, which appeared in national law. in liberty and can send can't be seen as on the american founders, what do they see as most precious going back to the declaration of independence and

the constitution, our rights come from god. the rates are protected by a form of government. it could be a smaller form of government, but it would be some form of estate. i think that answered your question. i don't see anything in the modern world that is coming up with something better. >> tumor questions. [inaudible]

>> -- jeane kirkpatrick seemed to look at things in the right way. >> as damaging kirkpatrick of the good things in the right way. a new book by ken andersen on u.s. policy towards the u.n. should be. we could do a number of things. one of the best things to do and john poulsen has suggested that to make u.n. views, even dues voluntary. will they pay for the things they want. this health products were involved with doing good job fighting disease, the human rights council. we don't want a fun night. the nascar just except good a palestinian state to enter as a nonparty member, and both of these are a form for anti-americanism in which i ran placed a major role. we don't want to fund not, so instead of being done 22%, we should move to a voluntary payment for the u.n.

probably some of you may disagree, were walking out. probably not a good logical move. it's not necessary to simply say will pay for the things we want to pay for on a voluntary basis. and on the security council, as fun as they had the veto in the security council, we certainly don't want to refer in the security council, which means ending the veto. the campus and new members on it, this certainly putting no basis and never anything serious should be done by great powers. cutting back the funding and having them do a few things they do okay, funding, paying for that assigned. having them talk, they can talk. not taking them seriously. a whole host of things we can do. i do think this dramatic scene where out is a good thing would

make much sense, but certainly cutting back and not taking them seriously. >> thanks very much for your top. going back to the question of europe, there is something that concerns me a little bit of a talk about why the nationstate. it's a choice only between nationstates as they exist right now and global governance? because i can think, for example, for my research at the problem with the european union is not the integration is a bad idea. it's precisely because europeans have not created an actual federal state that europe is in the trouble that it's in. this is an argument for more europe, basically more europe they should have started building in 1862. it's tougher to do now from 27, but precisely the problem is your nationstate so why somehow

advantages of a larger organization, but they did not want to pay the price. so what we're facing in europe in 1786, the problem when you create the article of the confederation, a government that doesn't have the strength to needs. i'm not saying you have to agree with me. a lot of the people you speak we don't agree, but the problem is not simply talking about a choice here between national sovereignty and global governance. under larger sovereignties they could at least theoretically be practical and workable and could protect the sovereignty and prosperity of the people who live in them? >> yes, there could be something you just pointed out. your governance, which is not global governance. you could have a regional government. yes, you could have that. i don't think that foster

liberty or consent, so i disagree with you there. i don't think it's 1786. yes they were virginians in massachusetts, but they offer the same same books. there were two readings or comments about colonies. a king james bible and shakespeare. there is a demas waiting to be born. there's no d. president clouse says there's french and german we can see that now. the germans are the most pro-european because they have to be. whether talking about now? well, they have no affection for the people, tired of paying for this. so the stream is not going to happen. even the germans got some benefits, some economic edifice for a while. but the benefits that they keep

going everybody out. in terms of consent, no, the british certainly -- it's not the house of commons. british democracy, days of john monk. 60% of the laws are in brussels. you can have this regime. it would be democratic. with you what i call the book post-democratic. they may exist. they may come out with something. it will be a post about machines because it will be based on individual rights. he'll be post-democratic. won't be antidemocratic, but it will be post-democratic, so you could have it. he wouldn't be a demas. it would be a government based on consent or liberty, but it could exist for a while. i don't think it would exist

forever. >> that is your talk is very illuminating. it casts a light on things that are not open to public inspection or at least not commonly in our politics and what seems insidious about the global governance movement is precisely that it is the technical elite movement, which proceeds without implicating itself too much democratic processes. how was it that you structure a politics to a post at? it seems that these are things that viscerally generate hostile reaction everyday americans and yet there never brought to american's attention to get in a snit about. how was it that you package this

kind of an issue so you can get a political reaction in america? >> very good point. besides talking about sovereignty progress. even the numbers are driven by specific issues. they're interested in something comes up, a disabled rights treaty or something that will become our sovereignty and cause problems and overreact. you're right. it's hard to a general way, but we have to look for particular problems. the other problem i try to point out is imagine testifying against the disabled treaty with a women's right. one of the centers weber said these are the countries. sudan, syria, iran. as for the united states to be. it's hard to answer and someone in 10 seconds. you have to go to the website and do this and that. so it's difficult on that score.

i don't think they organized a general physician, but you can wait for big items to. currently there's initiatives in philadelphia by the american bar association to promote the international criminal court and their pain for members of the court to come here, meet with american judges. they see this as a long-term process. this is a long-term thing. but even after they die. someday this is a goal that will someday reach. they should look at that and protect in the american republic. sometimes you disturb people are even on our side, i mean those who would like to see the american republic survived as long as i possibly can, to say nothing is forever. this republic is also not